Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Multistage Rewinding Decoder for QLDPC Codes

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A beam-search rewind that forces the LLRs of the most suspicious qubits lets min-sum decoding of QLDPC codes escape trapping sets and match order-10 ordered-statistics decoding on the tested codes.

desk verdict A plausible and well-specified engineering decoder for finite-length QLDPC codes, but the headline LER gains are not statistically demonstrated without trial counts or error bars. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07783 v1 pith:SEUTQUJ2 submitted 2026-08-07 quant-ph cs.ITmath.IT

Milad Taghipour , Dimitris Chytas , Bane Vasić This is my paper · ORCID
classification quant-phcs.ITmath.IT MSC 81P7094B35
keywords quantumLDPCcodestrappingsetsdegenerateerrorsmin-sumdecodingbeamsearchorderedstatisticsstabilizermultistage
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that iterative min-sum decoding of QLDPC codes can be rescued from its two main failure classes—classical trapping sets and degenerate errors on symmetric stabilizers—by rewinding: force the initial LLRs of a small set of suspicious qubits and rerun the decoder. A heuristic unreliability metric ranks qubits using the decoder's own dynamics, and a beam search explores forced configurations with a pruning score that balances residual syndrome weight and average posterior reliability. On bivariate-bicycle codes and a lifted-product Tanner code, the paper reports logical error rates far below normalized min-sum and competitive with belief propagation plus order-10 ordered-statistics decoding. A sympathetic reader would care because the method offers a decoder-only route to near-best post-processing performance without OSD's matrix inversion.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the unreliability metric $M_j = N_j/(D_j+\epsilon)$, whose numerator $N_j$ is a weighted sum of three decoder-dynamics features—how many residual unsatisfied checks touch qubit $j$, how strongly the unsatisfied checks push against the final posterior sign, and how often qubit $j$'s hard decision oscillated—and whose denominator discounts qubits with large final APP magnitude. Around this ranking, the method builds a beam search: each stage forces the top-$K$ unforced qubits in each active path to $\pm A$, reruns normalized min-sum, and keeps at most $W$ paths using a pruning score $P(v) = -\lambda_s w_s(v) + \lambda_\xi \xi(v)$ that rewards low residual syndrome weight and high average posterior magnitude. The metric is what turns an otherwise exponential search over forced values into a guided rewinding procedure.

What would settle it

Use the same hyperparameters on the [[288,12,18]] code at $\alpha=0.03$ but replace the unreliability ranking with a random ordering of qubits; if the logical error rate remains near the reported 286x improvement over nMS, then the metric is not the mechanism that makes the decoder work.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the internal dynamics of a failed message-passing decode contain enough information to locate the qubits whose erroneous values keep the decoder trapped, and that forcing their initial log-likelihood values to opposite signs and restarting resolves both classical and quantum trapping sets. The authors formalize this as a beam search over forced configurations, where each node's children are the top-K qubits under the unreliability metric and each child forces one qubit to $+A$ or $-A$. The search stops at the first stage with a zero residual syndrome and chooses the lightest consistent error estimate. They report, for example, a 286x logical-error-rate improvement over normalized min-sum on the [[288,12,18]] BB code at crossover probability 0.03 and a 3.2x improvement over nMS-OSD-10, with comparable or better performance on other tested BB codes and a two-order-of-magnitude gain on the LP Tanner code.

Load-bearing premise

The entire gain rests on the heuristic score that decides which qubits to rewind; if that ranking is not much better than chance, the beam search wastes its budget and the reported error-rate gains disappear.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the tested BB codes, the multistage decoder reaches or beats the logical error rate of nMS-OSD-10; on [[288,12,18]] at $\alpha=0.03$ it improves over nMS by 286x and over nMS-OSD-10 by 3.2x.
  • On the LP Tanner code [[1054,124,20]], it improves the logical error rate by two orders of magnitude at $\alpha=0.04$ over conventional nMS.
  • Most failures are corrected in early stages: for BB-288 about 99.35% of successful corrections happen within the first three stages, so beam width can be traded against search depth.
  • The method targets both classical trapping sets inherited from constituent codes and quantum trapping sets caused by degeneracy, not just one failure class.
  • Reducing the maximum number of stages from 11 to 3 with a larger top-$K$ parameter substantially mitigates the performance loss, indicating that low-latency configurations are possible.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The paper fixes $c_U,c_E,c_O$ and the forced magnitude $A$ by hand; a natural extension the authors do not pursue is tuning these per code family, and the reported saturation behavior suggests such tuning could change the gains.
  • The stage-correction data imply a latency-adaptive decoder could stop after the first few stages or widen the beam only when early stages fail; that adaptive policy is not constructed in the paper.
  • Because the experiments use only the binary symmetric channel, it remains open whether the rewind mechanism also helps under circuit-level or biased noise, where syndrome errors and error correlations alter the failure dynamics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a multistage rewind decoder for quantum LDPC codes. A syndrome-based normalized min-sum decoder is run to failure, a heuristic unreliability metric M_j (Eqs. 8–12) ranks variable nodes using unsatisfied-check participation, opposing check-to-variable messages, and hard-decision oscillations; the decoder then forces the initial LLRs of the top-K ranked nodes to ±A and restarts message passing inside a beam search with pruning score P(v) (Eq. 25). The algorithm is given as Algorithm 1. Simulations are reported for four bivariate bicycle codes ([[72,12,6]], [[108,8,10]], [[144,12,12]], [[288,12,18]]) and the lifted-product Tanner code [[1054,124,20]], claiming substantial gains over normalized min-sum and competitiveness with nMS-OSD-10, including a reported 286× improvement for [[288,12,18]] at α=0.03.

Significance. If the empirical claims are statistically substantiated, the proposed decoder would be a practically interesting alternative to BP-OSD-type post-processing for finite-rate QLDPC codes, since it replaces matrix-inversion-based post-processing with guided beam search. Strengths of the manuscript include a precise algorithmic specification (Algorithm 1), stage-wise correction diagnostics (Figs. 2 and 5), and a parameter trade-off study for Tmax and K (Figs. 3 and 6). The main gap is statistical: the headline LER claims are presented without trial counts, confidence intervals, or a stopping rule, and the heuristic suspicion metric is not validated by ablation or sensitivity analysis. These issues directly affect the central claim, so the manuscript needs revision before the results can be accepted.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section V, Figs. 1 and 4, and the text following Fig. 1] No Monte Carlo trial counts, confidence intervals, or simulation stopping rule are reported anywhere. The headline claim of a 286× improvement over nMS at α=0.03 for [[288,12,18]] implies a multistage LER near 1e-6; with no failure counts, the reported factor could be based on a single observed failure or even zero failures, in which case it is only an upper bound. The same issue affects the two-order-of-magnitude claim for the LP Tanner code and the comparison against nMS-OSD-10. Please report, for each plotted point, the number of trials, the number of logical failures, and Wilson or Clopper-Pearson confidence intervals, together with the criterion used to terminate simulations.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (8)–(12), and Section IV, Eq. (25)] The suspicion metric M_j is the load-bearing component of the search: the decoder spends its beam width on the nodes ranked highest by M_j, and the pruning score P(v) decides which branches survive. However, the weights cU=0.5, cE=0.3, cO=0.2 are stated without justification, and λ_s, λ_ξ, and the forced magnitude A are not specified at all. Figure 3 studies only Tmax and K; it does not test whether the metric's three terms each contribute, nor whether the reported gains are sensitive to these coefficients. Please add ablation experiments removing each term of M_j and a sensitivity analysis over cU, cE, cO, λ_s, λ_ξ, and A, or otherwise provide a principled selection method.
  3. [Section V, Fig. 1, and Section VI] The claim that the decoder is 'competitive with BP-OSD-10' and 'in some cases outperforms it' is supported by a single baseline comparison: nMS-OSD-10 for [[288,12,18]] in Fig. 1. No OSD baseline is provided for the other three BB codes or for the LP Tanner code [[1054,124,20]], so the broad comparative claim is not demonstrated for those instances. Please either add nMS-OSD-10 curves for the remaining codes or restrict the conclusion to the [[288,12,18]] case for which the comparison is actually shown.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section V, paragraph on the LP Tanner code] The text states 'at crossover probability α=0.4, the multistage decoder provides a two order of magnitude improvement', but Fig. 4 and the surrounding discussion indicate the intended value is α=0.04; this typo should be corrected.
  2. [Section IV, Algorithm 1] Line 15 passes F(v') to FNMS, but the child node was just defined with F(ν'); the argument should be F(ν'). In addition, line 24 selects from S(t+1) while the successful-node set was defined as G(t+1) in Eq. (26); the notation should be made consistent.
  3. [Section III, Eq. (8)] Equation (8) is typeset as 'M_j = N_j D_j + ε' in the submitted text, which is inconsistent with the description of D_j as a denominator and with the numerical-stability role of ε; it should read M_j = N_j/(D_j + ε) (or N_j/D_j with ε absorbed in D_j).
  4. [Section IV, Eq. (18) and Algorithm 1] The search complexity is not quantified: with W=64, Tmax=11, and K=1, the worst-case number of FNMS runs per syndrome is up to 2·K·W·Tmax = 1408; the paper should report the average number of decoder calls or runtime per frame to support the practical-feasibility discussion in Section V.
  5. [General] Several references to internal equations are informal ('as discussed in Eq. 8', 'pruning score in Equation P(v)'); these should be replaced with precise equation references, and the notation D_out(v) in Eq. (14)–(15) should be reconciled with the D(ν) notation used in Algorithm 1.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed LER gains are empirical comparisons against external baselines and do not reduce to any fitted quantity or self-citation chain.

full rationale

The central claim is an empirical one: logical error rate curves in Figs. 1, 3, 4, and 6 compare the proposed multistage decoder against normalized min-sum and nMS-OSD-10 on BB codes and the LP Tanner code. No equation in the paper derives the reported LER from the decoder's own parameters by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The unreliability metric M_j (Eqs. 8-12) is explicitly introduced as a heuristic with manually chosen weights (cU=0.5, cE=0.3, cO=0.2); it is an input to a beam-search procedure whose success is measured externally, not a quantity fitted to the reported LER values. Likewise, the pruning score P(v) (Eq. 25) contains unspecified hyperparameters, but this is an algorithm-design choice, not a claim that those hyperparameters predict the benchmark results. Self-citations such as [15] for the statement that nMS failures on BB codes are dominated by degenerate errors provide background motivation; they are not load-bearing for the numerical comparison, which uses external baselines including nMS-OSD-10 generated following [24]. The absence of trial counts or error bars is a statistical-validity concern rather than a circularity concern. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted or exhibited, and the derivation chain is self-contained with respect to the paper's empirical claims.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The method introduces no new physical entities. It rests on standard stabilizer formalism, on a noiseless-syndrome bit-flip noise model, and on two heuristic premises: the suspicion metric ranks rewinding candidates correctly, and the pruning score does not discard the successful path. All free parameters are hand-chosen constants or unspecified hyperparameters.

free parameters (6)
  • cU, cE, cO = 0.5, 0.3, 0.2
    Hand-selected weights in the unreliability metric (Eq. 9); no grid search or sensitivity analysis is shown, yet LER gains depend on them.
  • lambda_s, lambda_xi = not specified
    Hyperparameters of the pruning score (Eq. 25) control which beam paths survive; values are not given.
  • A (forced LLR magnitude) = not specified
    Used in Eq. 13 to define forced assignments; not specified, so Algorithm 1 cannot be exactly reproduced.
  • epsilon (stability constant) = not specified
    Used in Eqs. 8 to 10 to avoid division by zero; value omitted.
  • normalization factor beta = 0.875
    Scaling factor for normalized min-sum decoding; chosen by the authors and affects all decoder comparisons.
  • Search configuration (W, K, Tmax) = 64, 1, 11 in main runs
    Beam width, top-K candidate count, and maximum search depth are manually selected and varied in Section V.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Independent X and Z errors can be treated as two binary symmetric channels with noiseless syndrome measurement.
    Section II.A states that two independent BSCs can be considered; all simulations use this model, not circuit-level noise.
  • standard math CSS code orthogonality H_X H_Z^T = 0 and the Tanner graph representation of stabilizer checks.
    Standard stabilizer formalism used in Sections II.A and II.B without independent proof.
  • ad hoc to paper The suspicion metric M_j ranks variable nodes whose forcing leads to successful decoding.
    Eq. 8 is a heuristic; no proof or independent validation is given beyond the reported simulations.
  • ad hoc to paper The pruning score combining residual syndrome weight and average APP magnitude does not discard the successful search path.
    Eq. 25 is a heuristic; if pruning removes the correct branch, the decoder fails even when a valid forced configuration exists.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Multistage Rewinding Decoder for QLDPC Codes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SEUTQUJ2

@misc{pith2026260807783,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Multistage Rewinding Decoder for QLDPC Codes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SEUTQUJ2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07783}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we propose a multistage decoding framework that leverages internal information produced by an underlying message-passing decoder. The proposed method targets the failure dynamics caused by both classical trapping sets and degenerate errors supported on symmetric stabilizers, which are among the primary limitations of iterative decoding for QLDPC codes. To identify unreliable variable nodes, we introduce a heuristic metric that combines several dynamical features of the decoder, including variable-node log likelihood reliabilities, hard-decision oscillations, the number of adjacent unsatisfied checks, and the soft information contributed by unsatisfied checks. Based on this ranking metric, the decoder performs guided rewinds by selectively forcing the initial log likelihood ratio values of the most suspicious variable nodes and restarting the message-passing decoder under the corresponding forced configuration. To manage the combinatorial growth of candidate configurations, the search is formulated within a beam- search framework with controlled beam width. In addition, we introduce a pruning metric based on the combination of the residual syndrome weight and a posteriori reliability of the decoder output, thereby retaining only the most promising search paths. Logical error rate results demonstrate that the proposed decoder significantly outperforms the normalized min- sum decoder and achieves competitive performance with belief propagation enhanced by order-10 ordered statistics decoding.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07783 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Multistage decoder performance for BB codes of vario [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Stage correction of the multistage decoding for BB- [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Stage correction of the multistage decoding for LP Ta [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_5.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Multistage decoder performance for LP Tanner code fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [29]

    Beam search decoder for quantum LDPC codes,

    M. Y e, D. Wecker, and N. Delfosse, “Beam search decoder for quantum LDPC codes,” 2025. [Online]. Available : https://arxiv.org/abs/2512.07057

    arXiv 2025

  2. [30]

    Tesseract: A Sear ch-Based Decoder for Quantum Error Correction,

    L. A. Beni, O. Higgott, and N. Shutty, “Tesseract: A Sear ch-Based Decoder for Quantum Error Correction,” 2025. [Online]. Ava ilable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503.10988

    arXiv 2025

  3. [1]

    Asymptotically good quan tum and locally testable classical LDPC codes,

    P . Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Asymptotically good quan tum and locally testable classical LDPC codes,” in Proceedings of the 54th Annual ACM SIGACT Symposium on Theory of Computing , 2022, pp. 375–388

    work page 2022

  4. [2]

    Quantum Tanner Codes,

    A. Leverrier and G. Z´ emor, “Quantum Tanner Codes,” in 2022 IEEE 63rd Annual Symposium on F oundations of Computer Science (F OCS). IEEE, 2022, pp. 872–883

    work page 2022

  5. [3]

    Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,

    B. V asic, V . Savin, M. Pacenti, S. Borah, and N. Raveendra n, “Quantum Low-Density Parity-Check Codes,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.14090

    arXiv 2025

  6. [4]

    Quantum Error Correction Beyond the Bounded Distance Decoding Limit,

    K. Kasai, M. Hagiwara, H. Imai, and K. Sakaniwa, “Quantum Error Correction Beyond the Bounded Distance Decoding Limit,” IEEE Trans- actions on Information Theory , vol. 58, no. 2, pp. 1223–1230, 2012

    work page 2012

  7. [5]

    Qudit low-density parity-check codes,

    D. J. Spencer, A. Tanggara, T. Haug, D. Khu, and K. Bharti, “Qudit low-density parity-check codes,” Quantum, vol. 10, p. 2023, Mar. 2026. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.22331/q-2026- 03-13-2023

    doi:10.22331/q-2026- 2023

  8. [6]

    Non-Binary Hypergraph Product Codes for Qudit E rror Cor- rection,

    S. K. Borah, A. K. Pradhan, N. Raveendran, N. Rengaswamy, and B. V asi´ c, “Non-Binary Hypergraph Product Codes for Qudit E rror Cor- rection,” in 2024 IEEE International Conference on Quantum Computing and Engineering (QCE) , vol. 01, 2024, pp. 98–108

    work page 2024

Show all 48 references
  1. [7]

    High-threshold and low-overhead fault-toler ant quantum memory,

    S. Bravyi, A. W. Cross, J. M. Gambetta, D. Maslov, P . Rall, and T. J. Y oder, “High-threshold and low-overhead fault-toler ant quantum memory,” Nature, vol. 627, no. 8005, pp. 778–782, 2024

    2024

  2. [8]

    Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum compu tation with reconfigurable atom arrays,

    Q. Xu, J. P . Bonilla Ataides, C. A. Pattison, N. Raveendra n, D. Bluvstein, J. Wurtz, B. V asi´ c, M. D. Lukin, L. Jiang, and H. Zhou, “Constant-overhead fault-tolerant quantum compu tation with reconfigurable atom arrays,” Nature Physics , pp. 1–7, 2024. [Online]. Available: ...

    2024 doi

  3. [9]

    Trapping set ontology,

    B. V asi´ c, S. K. Chilappagari, D. V . Nguyen, and S. K. Plan jery, “Trapping set ontology,” in 2009 47th Annual Allerton Conference on Communication, Control, and Computing (Allerton) , 2009, pp. 1–7

    2009

  4. [10]

    Error Floors of LDPC Codes,

    T. J. Richardson, “Error Floors of LDPC Codes,” in Proc. 41st Ann. Allerton Conf. Commun., Contr . and Comp. , Monticello, IL, USA, Sept. 2003, pp. 1426–1435

    2003

  5. [11]

    Linear Time Iterative Decoders for Hypergraph-Product and Lifted -Product Codes,

    A. K. Pradhan, N. Raveendran, N. Rengaswamy, and B. V asi ´ c, “Linear Time Iterative Decoders for Hypergraph-Product and Lifted -Product Codes,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ab s/2504.01728

    2025 arXiv

  6. [12]

    Decod ing across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscap e,

    J. Roffe, D. R. White, S. Burton, and E. Campbell, “Decod ing across the quantum low-density parity-check code landscap e,” Physical Review Research , vol. 2, no. 4, Dec 2020. [Online]. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevResearch.2.043423

    2020 doi

  7. [13]

    Trapping Sets of Quantum L DPC Codes,

    N. Raveendran and B. V asi´ c, “Trapping Sets of Quantum L DPC Codes,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 562, Oct. 2021

    2021

  8. [14]

    On the Iterative Decoding of Spa rse Quantum Codes,

    D. Poulin and Y . Chung, “On the Iterative Decoding of Spa rse Quantum Codes,” Quantum Information and Computation , vol. 8, no. 10, pp. 987– 1000, Nov. 2008

    2008

  9. [15]

    Enhanced Min-Sum Decoding of Quantum Codes with Iteration Dynamics Memory,

    D. Chytas, N. Raveendran, and B. V asi´ c, “Enhanced Min-Sum Decoding of Quantum Codes with Iteration Dynamics Memory,” in 2025 IEEE International Symposium on Information Theory (ISIT) , 2025, pp. 1–6

    2025

  10. [16]

    Enhanced Message-Passing Decoding of Degenerate Quantum Codes Utilizing Trapping Set Dynamics,

    D. Chytas, M. Pacenti, N. Raveendran, M. F. Flanagan, an d B. V asi´ c, “Enhanced Message-Passing Decoding of Degenerate Quantum Codes Utilizing Trapping Set Dynamics,” IEEE Communications Letters , vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 444–448, 2024

    2024

  11. [17]

    Collective Bi t Flipping- Based Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,

    D. Chytas, N. Raveendran, and B. V asi´ c, “Collective Bi t Flipping- Based Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 73, no. 8, pp. 5566–5579, 2025

    2025

  12. [18]

    Improved belief propagation is s ufficient for real-time decoding of quantum memory,

    T. M¨ uller, T. Alexander, M. E. Beverland, M. B¨ uhler, B . R. Johnson, T. Maurer, and D. V andeth, “Improved belief propagation is s ufficient for real-time decoding of quantum memory,” 2025. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2506.01779

    2025 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Lay- ered Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,

    J. Du Crest, F. Garcia-Herrero, M. Mhalla, V . Savin, and J. V alls, “Lay- ered Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,” in 2023 12th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC) , 2023, pp. 1–5

    2023

  14. [20]

    Degenerate Quantum LDPC Codes With Good Finite Length Performance,

    P . Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Degenerate Quantum LDPC Codes With Good Finite Length Performance,” Quantum, vol. 5, p. 585, Nov. 2021

    2021

  15. [21]

    Stabilizer inacti vation for message-passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,

    J. Du Crest, M. Mhalla, and V . Savin, “Stabilizer inacti vation for message-passing decoding of quantum LDPC codes,” in 2022 IEEE Information Theory W orkshop (ITW) . IEEE, 2022, pp. 488–493

    2022

  16. [22]

    Belief Propagation Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes with Gui ded Decimation,

    H. Y ao, W. A. Laban, C. H¨ ager, A. G. i Amat, and H. D. Pfiste r, “Belief Propagation Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes with Gui ded Decimation,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2308.13377 , 2023

    2023 arXiv

  17. [23]

    De cimation Strategies for Belief Propagation Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,

    M. Alinia, D. G. M. Mitchell, H. Y ao, and H. D. Pfister, “De cimation Strategies for Belief Propagation Decoding of Quantum LDPC Codes,” in 2025 13th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC ), 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  18. [24]

    Toward Low-laten cy Iterative Decoding of QLDPC Codes Under Circuit-Level Nois e,

    A. Gong, S. Cammerer, and J. M. Renes, “Toward Low-laten cy Iterative Decoding of QLDPC Codes Under Circuit-Level Nois e,” 2024. [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.18901

    2024 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Ambiguity Clustering: an ac curate and efficient decoder for qLDPC codes,

    S. Wolanski and B. Barber, “Ambiguity Clustering: an ac curate and efficient decoder for qLDPC codes,” 2024. [Online]. Avai lable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.14527

    2024 arXiv

  20. [26]

    Localized statistics decoding: A parallel decod ing algorithm for quantum low-density parity-check codes,

    T. Hillmann, L. Berent, A. O. Quintavalle, J. Eisert, R. Wille, and J. Roffe, “Localized statistics decoding: A parallel decod ing algorithm for quantum low-density parity-check codes,” 2024. [Onlin e]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2406.18655

    2024

  21. [27]

    An almost-linear time decoding algorithm for qu antum LDPC codes under circuit-level noise,

    A. deMarti iOlius, I. E. Martinez, J. Roffe, and J. E. Martinez, “An almost-linear time decoding algorithm for qu antum LDPC codes under circuit-level noise,” 2024. [Online]. Ava ilable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2409.01440

    2024 arXiv

  22. [28]

    SymBreak: Mitigating Quantum Degeneracy Issues in QLDPC Code Decoders by Breaking Symmet ry,

    K. Yin, X. Fang, J. Ruan, H. Zhang, D. Tullsen, A. Sornbor ger, C. Liu, A. Li, T. Humble, and Y . Ding, “SymBreak: Mitigating Quantum Degeneracy Issues in QLDPC Code Decoders by Breaking Symmet ry,”

  23. [31]

    MUDRI: A fault-tolera nt decoding algorithm,

    P . Ivanis, O. Ras, and B. V asi´ c, “MUDRI: A fault-tolera nt decoding algorithm,” in Proc. IEEE Int. Comm. Conf. (ICC 2015) , London, UK, Jun. 8 - 12 2015, pp. 4291–4296

    2015

  24. [32]

    Suspicion Distilla tion Gradient Descent Bit-Flipping Algorithm,

    P . Ivanis, S. Brkic, and B. V asi´ c, “Suspicion Distilla tion Gradient Descent Bit-Flipping Algorithm,” MDPI Entropy , vol. 24, p. 558, March 2022. [Online]. Available: https://doi.org/10.339 0/e24040558

    2022

  25. [33]

    Augmente d Belief Propagation Decoding of Low-Density Parity Check Codes,

    N. V arnica, M. P . C. Fossorier, and A. Kavcic, “Augmente d Belief Propagation Decoding of Low-Density Parity Check Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 55, no. 7, pp. 1308–1317, 2007

    2007

  26. [34]

    Noisy Gradient Descent Bit-Flip Decoding for LDPC Codes,

    G. Sundararajan, C. Winstead, and E. Boutillon, “Noisy Gradient Descent Bit-Flip Decoding for LDPC Codes,” IEEE Transactions on Communications, vol. 62, no. 10, pp. 3385–3400, 2014

    2014

  27. [35]

    Error Errore Eicitur: A Stocha stic Resonance Paradigm for Reliable Storage of Information on Unreliable Media,

    B. V asi´ c and P . Ivanis, “Error Errore Eicitur: A Stocha stic Resonance Paradigm for Reliable Storage of Information on Unreliable Media,” IEEE Transactions on Communications , vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3596–3608, 2016

    2016

  28. [36]

    Action-List Reinforcemen t Learning De- coders,

    M. Taghipour and B. V asi´ c, “Action-List Reinforcemen t Learning De- coders,” in 2025 13th International Symposium on Topics in Coding (ISTC), 2025, pp. 1–5

    2025

  29. [37]

    Action-List Reinforcement Learning Syndrome Decoding for Binary Linear Block Codes,

    M. Taghipour and B. V asic, “Action-List Reinforcement Learning Syndrome Decoding for Binary Linear Block Codes,” 2025. [On line]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2507.17893

    2025 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Beam-Stack Search: Integrati ng Backtrack- ing with Beam Search,

    R. Zhou and E. A. Hansen, “Beam-Stack Search: Integrati ng Backtrack- ing with Beam Search,” in ICAPS, 2005, pp. 90–98

    2005

  31. [39]

    Good quantum error-cor recting codes exist,

    A. R. Calderbank and P . W. Shor, “Good quantum error-cor recting codes exist,” Physical Review A , vol. 54, no. 2, p. 1098, 1996

    1996

  32. [40]

    Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Corr ection,

    D. Gottesman, “Stabilizer Codes and Quantum Error Corr ection,” Ph.D. dissertation, California Institute of Technology, 1997

    1997

  33. [41]

    Spars e-graph Codes for Quantum Error Correction,

    D. J. C. MacKay, G. Mitchison, and P . L. McFadden, “Spars e-graph Codes for Quantum Error Correction,” IEEE Transactions on Informa- tion Theory , vol. 50, no. 10, pp. 2315–2330, Oct. 2004

    2004

  34. [42]

    Quantum two-block group al gebra codes,

    H.-K. Lin and L. P . Pryadko, “Quantum two-block group al gebra codes,” Phys. Rev. A , vol. 109, p. 022407, Feb 2024. [Online]. Available: https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevA.109.022407

    2024 doi

  35. [43]

    Quantum LDPC Codes With A lmost Linear Minimum Distance,

    P . Panteleev and G. Kalachev, “Quantum LDPC Codes With A lmost Linear Minimum Distance,” IEEE Trans. Inf. Theory , vol. 68, no. 1, pp. 213–229, Jan. 2022

    2022

  36. [44]

    On the Minim um Distances of Finite-Length Lifted Product Quantum LDPC Cod es,

    N. Raveendran, D. Declercq, and B. V asi´ c, “On the Minim um Distances of Finite-Length Lifted Product Quantum LDPC Cod es,”

  37. [45]

    Reduced-Complexity Decoding of LDPC Codes,

    J. Chen, A. Dholakia, E. Eleftheriou, M. Fossorier, and X.-Y . Hu, “Reduced-Complexity Decoding of LDPC Codes,” IEEE Trans. Com- mun., vol. 53, no. 8, pp. 1288–1299, Aug. 2005

    2005

  38. [46]

    Exploiting degeneracy in beli ef propagation decoding of quantum codes,

    K.-Y . Kuo and C.-Y . Lai, “Exploiting degeneracy in beli ef propagation decoding of quantum codes,” npj Quantum Information , vol. 8, no. 1, Sep. 2022

    2022

  39. [2024]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2412. 02885

  40. [2025]

    Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503

    [Online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/abs/2503. 07567

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.